Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 159 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2015] EWHC 1398 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Singh J

Representation Richard Drabble QC and Tim Buley (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for the claimants.
  Michael Fordham QC and Jason Pobjoy (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 19 May 2015

Catchwords

Accountant - Discipline - Formal complaint - Claimant accountants' firm and partners seeking judicial review of third defendant Executive Counsel of first defendant Financial Reporting Council's decision to deliver formal complaint against claimants to second defendant Conduct Committee - Whether guidance containing legally erroneous approach to 'misconduct' - Whether decision to deliver formal complaint being flawed by erroneous approach to 'misconduct' - Whether defendant's approach to public interest test being flawed - Whether appropriate for court to intervene by way of judicial review.

The Case

Accountant Discipline. The claimant accountants' firm and partners sought judicial review of the third defendant Executive Counsel of the first defendant Financial Reporting Council's decision to deliver a formal complaint against the claimants to the second defendant Conduct Committee. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendants had not adopted an erroneous meaning of 'misconduct' and the Executive Counsel's decision had not been irrational or otherwise unlawful. Further, cases in which a challenge was made to a decision to bring proceedings before an independent disciplinary tribunal should not normally be brought by way of judicial review and should proceed before that tribunal.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.